Search form

Offering != Distribution

Judge Marilyn Patel issued a ruling (PDF) Wednesday that settles an important question in the ongoing Napster (yes, Napster) case -- whether under the law, simply offering copyrighted material to others (say, by listing it in an index) means you're distributing it.

The record label lawyers, as Ernie Miller so delicately puts it, "were bloody idiots because they didn't nail down evidence of direct infringement before launching the Napster lawsuit." They have therefore been working hard at making the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 (ART Act) work for them, hoping Judge Patel would adopt a new, broader standard for the right of distribution based on one of its provisions. If Judge Patel found Napster liable for direct infringement on the theory of making-available-as-distributing, the labels could press forward against Napster's investors on that basis. No such luck.

Rather than requiring proof of the actual dissemination of a copyrighted work or an offer to distribute that work for the purpose of its further distribution or public performance, plaintiffs' theory is premised on the assumption that any offer to distribute a copyrighted work violates section 106(3). This is not sufficient to satisfy plaintiffs' burden of proving that Napster or its users directly infringed their copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, as they must do if they are to hold defendants secondarily liable for that infringement. Accordingly, the court holds that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

In other words, copyright holders have to prove that someone actually downloaded the file from you before you can be found liable for distributing. The simple act of offering isn't enough.

Accordingly, the court holds that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

In the context of the case, this is a minor victory -- Judge Patel did not dismiss the other theories for direct infringement, so the case will continue against Napster's investors on those grounds. But it does clarify the law, providing a safeguard against the over-reach that the ART Act threatened.

Related Updates

EFF, Public Knowledge, and the Center for Democracy and Technology Urge The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to Protect Internet Subscribers in BMG v. Cox. No one should have to fear losing their Internet connection because of unfounded accusations. But some rights holders want to use...

If you only listened to entertainment industry lobbyists, you’d think that music and film studios are fighting a losing battle against copyright infringement over the Internet. Hollywood representatives routinely tell policymakers that the only response to the barrage of online infringement is to expand copyright or even create new copyright-adjacent...

Copyright Lawsuits Won’t Stop People from Sharing Research In principle, everyone in the world should have access to the same body of knowledge. The UN Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone deserves the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” The reality is a bit messier...

"This is a sensible ruling that will help protect free expression in Sweden," said Mitch Stoltz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The court recognized that Internet service providers shouldn't be held responsible for copyright infringement by their customers," he told the E-Commerce Times. If ISPs...

Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst for the EFF, said that the proposal from the Obama administration may be overreaching. "The blog post posits that IP/trade secret concerns are reasons that are not already covered to take down botnets. That's a civil/private context and we've seen private companies use the Lanham...

Despite the critique, it’s far from clear that Tucows and other registrars are doing anything wrong. In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that there is no law requiring registrars to disconnect pirate sites. “Domain registrars do not have an obligation to respond to a random third party’s complaints about...

Advocacy groups are stepping up their efforts to prevent Attorneys General from reviving parts of the Stop Online Piracy Act on a state level. The groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, and Engine Advocacy, have written a letter to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who...

"Copyright touches everyone's lives now because we all have copying devices in our pockets and in our homes," said Mitch Stoltz, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He warned that digital-rights organizations will be ready to battle any legislation they see as a threat to online expression.

Right now the FCC is considering a set of rules that would allow Internet providers to offer faster access to some websites that can afford to pay. We need to stop them. Let’s start with the obvious: The Internet is how we communicate and how we work, learn...